Home | USCIS



Questions and Answers

USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

White Oak Conference Room

Washington, D.C. 20529

2:30pm to 4:00pm ET

1. Asylum Division Updates

• Personnel Announcements.

o John Lafferty, Chief, Asylum Division

o Susan Dibbins, Acting Director for 90-day detail, Arlington Asylum Office

o Pamela Sullivan, HQASM Senior Administrative Assistant

o Antonio Donis, Acting Deputy Director, Arlington Asylum Office

• RAIO Combined Training. The most recent session of our RAIO Combined Training commenced on June 10th with 31 Asylum Officers, 4 Refugee Officers, and 2 IO Adjudications Officers. The graduation for the Asylum Officers will take place on August 1, 2013. These new officers will return to various field offices throughout the country, particularly the Los Angeles, Houston, and New York Asylum Offices.

• ABT Settlement Update. USCIS, EOIR and plaintiffs Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, American Immigration Council, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, and the law firm Gibbs Houston Pauw recently arrived at a proposed settlement agreement in the putative class action regarding employment authorization for asylum seekers and the asylum clock. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May 6, 2013.  A fairness hearing took place on Sept 20, 2013.  If the court gives final approval to the settlement, then by November 6, 2013 (six months from the court's preliminary approval of the settlement), USCIS and EOIR will begin implementation of the settlement terms on an interim basis, as outlined below.  Final implementation of the settlement will be completed within twenty-four (24) months from preliminary approval.

•          USCIS will implement new procedures that make it easier for affirmative asylum applicants who miss their asylum interviews to resume the asylum application process at a USCIS Asylum Office and preserve their eligibility for employment authorization while consideration of their asylum application continues. Previously, asylum applicants who failed to appear for an asylum interview before USCIS without authorization were referred to removal proceedings and rendered ineligible for an EAD because of their unexcused failure to appear.  Under the settlement agreement, asylum applicants who fail to appear for their interviews will be provided with additional time in which they may seek to reschedule after their missed interview, a new letter warning of the consequences of failing to reschedule within the extended timeframe, and notice outlining specific procedures by which to seek recourse after the expiration of the rescheduling period.

Specifically, when an asylum applicant is referred based on an interview no show, the referral notice will contain information about procedures for returning jurisdiction to the asylum office. A request to reschedule an interview with the Asylum Office that is made after 45 days from the missed interview must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances.” Upon determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Asylum Office will issue a determination letter to the applicant and notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Chief Counsel (“ICE OCC”) of the determination. An applicant who establishes exceptional circumstances may then request the ICE OCC’s agreement to exercise prosecutorial discretion to join in the motion to dismiss removal proceedings. If the immigration judge dismisses proceedings, and the asylum application is returned to the asylum office, the asylum office will reopen the asylum application and take jurisdiction over the applicant’s case.

•           In adjudicating EAD requests, USCIS will credit toward employment authorization the time an asylum applicant spends successfully appealing an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, provided the applicant's asylum case is remanded back to an immigration judge for further consideration.

•           EOIR will create a new procedure for defensive asylum applicants to "lodge" an asylum application at an EOIR court clerk's window in advance of a hearing with an immigration judge.  In adjudicating EAD requests, USCIS will count this "lodging" date as the application filing date for the purposes of adjudicating EAD requests.

•           USCIS and EOIR will jointly produce a new notice document providing asylum applicants with additional information regarding obtaining employment authorization.

•           EOIR will revise its Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum (OPPM) 11-02 to state that immigration judges must make the reasons for adjourning an asylum case clear on the record, and that non-detained asylum applicants who qualify for an expedited hearing date must be offered a minimum of 45 days when setting a merits hearing.  

• DOMA Update. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct 2675, struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, § 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419 (codified as amended at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (2000)) (DOMA), which had limited the terms “marriage” and “spouse” to opposite-sex marriages for purposes of all federal laws. As a result, USCIS may now interpret “spouse” in section 208 of the INA to include an applicant's same sex spouse. USCIS will now accept I-589 applications for asylum filed by same-sex marriage cases. More information on USCIS policy can be found on the public website.

Our case management system currently does not allow the data entry of same-sex marriage cases. Until this change is implemented, we are now providing interim instructions to our field offices and to Service Center Operations on the processing/data entry of these cases.

• Recently Issued Memoranda. Five significant memorandums have been issued since the March Asylum Stakeholder Quarterly. They are provided as handouts for your review.

a. Extension of Credible Fear Determination Checklist Pilot. The Asylum Division has developed a number of measures to streamline the credible fear process to better address the volume of cases we receive and allow officers to timely complete cases. The template form of the checklist is a more efficient substitute for the credible fear determination because it walks the officer through the legal analysis and saves the officer valuable time during the processing of the case.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Will the applicant receive a written notice or a copy of the checklist?

Response: The applicant will continue to receive the same set of documents they normally receive. Credible Fear forms are currently being revised and piloted. Modifications to these forms are under consideration and will be forthcoming next fiscal year.

b. Telephonic Interviews in Negative Credible Fear Determinations. This guidance allows for officers to continue over the telephone even when it appears that a determination will be negative. Previously the Asylum Division required VTEL or an in-person follow-up interview if a telephonic interview was turning negative. Due to the volume of cases, we have instituted this streamlining measure to improve processing efficiency without sacrificing the quality of the adjudication. Asylum Offices have been conducting telephonic interviews for some time and have obtained experience in conducting interviews in the telephonic format.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Is the change to telephonic interviewing permanent?

Response: This procedure will be in place until further notice. We are implementing streamlining measures to both handle the increasing volume of cases and to minimize the time an individual remains in detention. As with all procedures, we are amenable to change when warranted.

c. Processing Credible Fear Cases when a Rare Language Interpreter is Unavailable. This guidance would apply in the instance when one or two extremely rare languages are required for the interview and the contractors are unable to locate interpreters. In our experience this only occurs in rare instances. Instead of waiting for an interpreter to be available, the officer would interview the person, issue a Notice to Appear, and move the individual to the next step in the process.

Stakeholder Follow-up: What is your definition of being able to communicate in another language if another interpreter is available?

Response: It is a judgment call made by the Asylum Officer interviewing the case. The Asylum Officer must determine that an individual can understand the questions and provide meaningful answers.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Is there any training for Asylum Officers on whether a person is able to understand the interpreter?

Response: As a part of the required RAIO Combined Training/Asylum Division Officer Training Course, Asylum Officers receive training on interviewing skills, and there is a specific module entitled, “Working with an Interpreter.” Our Asylum Officers spend a lot of time working with interpreters, and in general have a great deal of experience with these issues.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Is EOIR aware of this memo?

Response: We have not formally shared this memo with EOIR. It is our anecdotal understanding that EOIR has a much better ability to provide interpreters. This new procedure addresses a very small number of our cases that we do not encounter very often.

d. Updated Procedures for Determination of Initial Jurisdiction over Asylum Applications Filed by Unaccompanied Alien Children and Updated Service Center Operations Procedures for Accepting Forms I-589 Filed by Unaccompanied Alien Children. This guidance addresses the new process to determine initial jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by UACs. The Asylum Division now recognizes and accepts prior DHS determinations on whether a person is a UAC. Previously Asylum Officers made independent factual inquiries at the time of the interview to determine UAC status.  The new procedures prevent the back and forth at courts we have experienced in the past and saves time and resources, especially for the UAC applicants.

2. Statistics. Please provide statistics from March, April, May, and June 2013 on Affirmative Asylum workload; NACARA workload; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear workloads; Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya receipts; and Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs). Please also provide statistics for Iran receipts.

Response: The requested statistics are attached.

3. Affirmative Backlog. Can you please provide any updates or statistics regarding backlogs at the various Asylum Offices? Are affirmative applications still being prioritized below CFIs and RFIs for processing?  Is there any projection for when the processing of affirmative applications might go back to “normal?”

Response: The Asylum Division is currently facing increasing numbers of receipts in all programs, except for NACARA.  As there is a risk of legitimate refugees being subjected to prolonged detention, our program has always practiced expedited case processing for individuals in credible fear.  These days, because detained cases have significant impacts on detention space and funding, the unprecedented and continuing surge of credible fear cases and the less dramatic but still increasing numbers of reasonable fear cases have the attention of DHS and USCIS leadership as well.  These detained cases are the asylum program’s top priority.  Affirmative asylum applicants are not detained and are eligible to receive work authorization should their applications pend for 180 days. 

Last year, there were roughly 45,000 affirmative applications, and this year USCIS expects the same number, if not more. Compare this number to previous and recent years where we received 28,000 to 30,000 affirmative asylum applications. The combination of increased receipts, prioritization of detained cases, and staff shortages result in an increasing number of affirmative cases going into the backlog.

In response to increasing caseloads, the Asylum Division has been approved to hire approximately 200 new staff members, including around 100 additional Asylum Officers.  This staff growth represents the largest increase in FY2013 for any USCIS program office.  The Asylum Offices are moving rapidly to fill the new vacancies following recent Congressional approval to expand the program’s payroll expenditures. Even prior this final approval, in anticipation, our field offices have been recruiting and interviewing. In addition, USCIS is currently analyzing the need to further increase the Asylum Office staffing levels to address the continuing surge in receipts.          

The Asylum Offices are on track to onboard nearly all of the new officers prior to December 2013. The new Asylum Officers will need to complete extensive training before adjudicating cases. The projected training schedule for FY2014 includes three courses: September 30 - November 21, 2013, January 17 – March 14, 2014, and May 16 – July 11, 2014. Hopefully by spring most of the positions will be filled, hired, and trained.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Is ZAR hiring yet?

Response: ZAR has hired several new officers this year. ZAR hired new Asylum Officers from a public job notice posted at the beginning of the year and subsequently posted an Asylum Officer merit promotion announcement on May 27, 2013. ZAR has hired seven new Asylum Officers from this list.

4. ZLA Backlog and Scheduling Policies. The Anaheim Asylum Office, and other asylum offices to a lesser extent, is experiencing a backlog of thousands of cases that have not been scheduled for an interview; some cases have been waiting for a year or more without an appointment. For the Anaheim Asylum Office in particular, those cases that are not scheduled within 45 days are doomed to remain on the sidelines indefinitely, with newer cases taking priority. For example, our office filed over 30 asylum applications in the period between January and March of 2013, none of which were scheduled. The cases our office filed in mid-April to May of 2013 were all scheduled within a 45 day period. In other words, what is happening is every time there is a flood of cases that cannot be accommodated, the doors close and those cases are left on the sidelines and forgotten about. This is fundamentally unfair. If there is going to be a backlog, everyone must stay in line and no one should be removed from that line. It creates a last come, first served procedure that again is simply unfair. Asylum serves people who have been persecuted or fear persecution. It is a population with physical and mental scars, a population looking for a refuge where they can permanently resettle. Keeping them uncertain about their future is greatly adding to their anxiety. I have some clients considering abandoning their asylum applications due to illnesses they cannot afford to treat in the U.S. because of high costs, something which would be remedied if their asylum applications were heard and adjudicated.

To be completely fair, some of the backlogged cases are being scheduled after a Congressional Inquiry is lodged; however, even that process is now experiencing a backlog because more and more clients and their attorneys are becoming aware of it.

I have been practicing immigration law since 2004 and have never experienced anything as systematically unfair as the way cases are currently being scheduled, or not scheduled. I hope that something can be done soon to remedy this serious problem.

Response: When receipts exceed capacity as is currently the case in some offices, some cases do go into our backlog.  Our case management system was designed to schedule in a manner to address the backlog that existed in the 90s and to curb abuse – consistent with asylum reform measures. Our case management system continues to schedule more recently received cases first, a process which discourages non-meritorious filings but does result in some affirmative cases having to wait for longer periods before being scheduled for an asylum interview. This has always been the case, however, our program has been current with incoming receipts in recent years and this system may not have been visible. To date, the Los Angeles Asylum Office along with the New York Asylum Office are the two offices most impacted by the increased affirmative asylum receipts.

The case scheduling system will continue to follow the scheduling priority categories. However, regardless of the described processing/scheduling priorities, if there are exigent circumstances, the applicants and representatives should bring those cases to the attention of the Asylum Office. Please use our customer access process to submit such requests to our field offices.

Even in this time where our backlog is growing, we have directed our offices to prioritize reschedule requests, as we are aware that reschedule requests affect the employment authorization clock.

More information on our case management system scheduling can be found in the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual (pp. 10-11), which is available on .

5. Definition of “Good Faith Asylum Application”. I would like to see whether you may respond to the issue of responding to a Consulate inquiry regarding the issue of bona fide asylum application in the context of finding that a person was not unlawfully present in the United States.

The scenario is the following: A person who has had an asylum application pending attends to his consular processing appointment and is found to be inadmissible for accumulating unlawful presence, when in fact the person has never worked without employment authorization and has had a good faith asylum application. Consular officers request evidence that he has been legally authorize to work and that he had a good faith asylum application. The FAM states that the Consular Office is supposed to contact the Asylum Headquarter Unit and request an opinion about the good faith asylum application, if they do not respond in 60 days, the Consular office may assume that the asylum application is a good faith asylum application.

I would like to learn about the process at the Asylum Headquarters Unit and the grounds to determine a good faith asylum application.

Response: When the State Department Consular Officer is determining whether an alien qualifies for the statutory exception to inadmissibility (asylee exception to unlawful presence) under 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(II) of the INA, they may contact the Asylum Division for a confirmation of bona fides. This is typically done through a cable communication. We will order the A-file and conduct a review of the file and systems to determine whether or not there is any period of unauthorized employment while the individual’s asylum application was pending. Once this review is complete, we send a response to the Department of State. We received approximately 10 requests annually. Asylum is to notify State within 60 days from the date of referral, and if not the consular officer may presume the application for asylum is bona fide.

6. Asylum Pre-Screening Timelines. We remain concerned about reports of delays in the fear determination process for arriving asylum seekers in ICE detention. Please provide an update on the current timelines between an expression of fear by an arriving asylum seeker and referral by CBP to USCIS and 1) the CFI or RFI being conducted, and 2) the fear determination and notification of the applicant. How have these timelines fluctuated so far this year and what are projected timelines for the remainder of the year?

Additional Request for Timelines:

1. For CFIs, what is the average wait time between entry, interview, and decision date? Does this vary by region? 

2. For RFIs, what is the average wait time between apprehension, interview, and decision date?  Does this vary by region? 

Response: CFI: Because there may be a delay between the date an asylum seeker enters the US and when they are apprehended by CBP, the Asylum Division does not find looking at the timeframe between entry date and interview date to be reliable. We find the date that the applicant is detained to be a more reliable indicator.  In FY2013, the average number of days between detention and clock-in (when the Asylum Office accepts CF jurisdiction) is 22 days.  Anecdotally and from file review, we have heard that many asylum seekers do not express a credible fear at the border with CBP, but rather after being detained for a period of time. 

Overall, we have improved our processing times this year. We have also moved to an even more aggressive processing target, attempting to reach an average 8-day processing time (instead of our 85% of cases processed in 14 days). This is a new way of thinking and measuring for our program, and since we began this 8-day goal (beginning on June 10), the offices have adapted with their usual diligence and we are currently processing CF at an average of 10 days.

The Asylum Division closely monitors the following timeframes in FY2013:

• Clock in to interview – 8 days  (range of 3-13 days by office)

• Interview to Service of Decision – 6 days  (range of 4-23 days)

• Clock in to Service – 14 days  (range of 9-36 days)

Since implementing the 8-day average processing time goal, we have improved to the following:

• Clock in to interview – 4 days  (range of 2-8 days by office)

• Interview to Service of Decision – 6 days  (range of 3-11 days)

• Clock in to Service – 10 days  (range of 7-17 days)

RFI: The Asylum Division does not capture the apprehension date by CBP or ICE in APSS.  However, the Asylum Division does record the detention date, although individuals may not express a fear immediately upon detention.  In FY2013, the average number of days between detention and clock-in (when the Asylum Office accepts RF jurisdiction) is 49 days.

The Asylum Division closely monitors the following timeframes in FY2013:

• Clock in to interview – 39 days  (range of 29-43 days by office)

• Interview to Service of Decision – 23 days  (range of 20-38 days)

• Clock in to Service – 62 days  (range of 49-69 days)

The Asylum Division is continuing to prioritize detained individuals in CF and RF over affirmative receipts. When we must, we prioritize CF over RF.

7. Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Statistics. Do you continue to see an upward trend in requests for CFIs and RFIs?  Have the numbers leveled off?  Decreased?

Response: We continue to experience increased receipts in both CF and RF. The Houston Asylum Office and then Los Angeles are the most affected for CF. The Newark Asylum Office has received almost double the amount of RF cases, followed by increases or status quo at the Chicago, Los Angeles, and Arlington Asylum Offices. Houston, Miami, and San Francisco have all seen slight decreases in RF referrals. Last year our program received a record high of 13,880 credible fear receipts. We are projected to receive around 30,000 CF and 6,000 RF by the end of the fiscal year.

8. Credible Fear Nationality Trends. What are the trends in CFI requests by nationality?  Have you seen any unusual changes in the number of requests from any particular originating countries?

Response: We continue to see high numbers of CF referrals from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. These three countries comprise approximately 65% of all CF cases currently. We are beginning to see an increase in Indian nationals coming through Arizona. We saw this back in 2011, significant numbers of Indians in credible fear. This dropped off in FY2012, but we have just recently begun to see an increase in this nationality again.

9. Staffing. Do you continue to have staffing concerns based on the CFI and RFI numbers?  Are asylum officers continuing to be deployed to the southern border to process CFI and RFI claims?  If so, what is the percentage of AOs/APSOs that are being deployed?

Response: We are feeling better that help is on the way in the form of hiring more staff, but in the meantime we continue to struggle with limited staff and sharing resources between the offices. Since our Houston office receives the most credible fear cases, this is the focus of our resources. This past year we have instituted a remote interviewing process. This remote processing is conducted by all the asylum offices including the New York Asylum Office. Each office can provide 3-7 officers to remote processing of Houston’s CF cases. Remote processing enables our offices to assist Houston Asylum with its CF workload by conducting and processing these cases telephonically. In addition to remote telephonic interviews, there has been a concerted effort to detail officers to Houston Asylum to augment their staff. We are starting to see results and are staying on top of the CF cases, but this is at the expense of our affirmative asylum receipts. Once we get new staff on board, this will turn around.

10. Expediting Decision Process. Is there anything that we can do to expedite the process of asylum decision making? Better preparation of applications and exhibits? Traveling to the main Asylum Office locations for interviews? Post interview actions? Proposed decisions and reports?

Response: Although credible fear continues to be the first priority because of the doubling of the receipts in this category, if an applicant lives in the jurisdiction of a circuit ride location but prefers to have his or her asylum application adjudicated at the main Asylum Office, the applicant can request to be interviewed at the main office and the office will accommodate this request if possible. If such an applicant is interviewed at the main Asylum Office, it is unlikely that he or she would be asked to return to the main Asylum Office to pick up the decision in 2 weeks and would instead receive the decision by mail, which would likely take longer than 2 weeks.

We always welcome well-prepared asylum applications. It is particularly helpful when the applications are organized, complete, and accurate so that the Asylum Officer is able to review the I-589 and the supplementary documents in a timely manner and spend the majority of the time during the interview eliciting testimony. If your client’s case involves a particularly complex issue, it may be useful to brief the Asylum Officer on the issue in a short supplementary brief. Additionally, if country condition reports are provided as part of the application, please highlight the excerpts that are relevant to the facts of your client’s case.

Please note, however, that while well-prepared and well-organized asylum applications are always welcome and can facilitate the adjudication process, a novel legal issue or a background and security check issue could still result in a delay of the adjudication of even a well-prepared and well-organized asylum application.

11. Withdrawal of Asylum Application and Derivative Status. What are the grounds and methods for withdrawing an asylum application?  A derivative who is CSPA-protected was informed that he could not file a derivative asylum application because it was withdrawn. Neither he nor his principal applicant mother withdrew the application. 

Response: An applicant may withdraw an affirmative asylum application at any time prior to the issuance of a decision. Procedurally, an applicant may choose to withdraw:

• Prior to the interview (by mail or in-person),

• On the day of the interview (in front of Asylum Office personnel), or

• After the interview has been conducted but before the decision has been served on the

applicant.

For more information on withdrawal requests, please see Section III.W, Withdrawal Requests, in the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual, which is available on .

12. Nunc Pro Tunc Eligibility and Procedures. Could you please discuss Nunc Pro Tunc asylum applications, who qualifies, where to file, eligibility etc? 

Response: In order to gain lawful permanent resident status based on a relationship to a principal applicant who was granted asylum, a derivative asylee must continue to meet the definition of a spouse or child of a refugee at the time USCIS adjudicates the application for lawful permanent resident status. If the derivative asylee no longer meets the definition of spouse or child, or the principal no longer meets the definition of a refugee, the derivative may not adjust his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident based on that relationship. Although an individual may lose his or her ability to adjust status based on a “spouse” or “child” relationship to the principal, once asylum status is granted, an individual does not lose asylee status even if a principal/dependent relationship ends, unless USCIS or EOIR formally terminates asylum. The Asylum Program accepts new I-589 applications from these former dependents as principals under special procedures in order to create an avenue for individuals who have been recognized as asylees the ability to adjust status.

Derivative asylees typically lose their relationship to the principal asylee in the following ways:

• A child marries

• The principal and a spouse divorce

• The principal naturalizes

For more information on nunc pro tunc processing, please see Section III.E.7, Loss of Derivative Status After Asylum Approval but Before Adjustment of Status, in the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual, which is available on .

13. National Customer Service Center. Attorneys of record and asylees continue to have problems communicating with the National Customer Service Center.  As was mentioned at our last meeting, the NCSC insists that it may not give out any information regarding any application (I-765, I-730, I-485, etc.) that may have any relation to an asylum claim.  It also continues to refer callers to local asylum offices for further assistance.  Did you have any opportunity to communicate further with the NCSC on this problem?  It seems to have gotten worse rather than better, especially now that there is a refusal to speak to the asylee or applicant themselves (not just the attorney of record).  Also, on more than one occasion, attorneys and clients have reported that NCSC staff indicated that “this is a policy change that was instituted by asylum headquarters.”  Is this correct?

Response: Asylum contacted our liaison with the call centers and clarified that NCSC staff are allowed to respond to inquiries relating to I-131s, I-765s or I-485s based on underlying I-589 applications. Asylum deferred to SCOPS to provide guidance concerning inquiries relating to I-730 applications. The Call Center HQ staff is in the process of working with SCOPS to provide final clarification to the NCSC staff regarding I-730 applications, in addition to I-131, I-765 and I-485 applications.

Stakeholder Follow-up: When will this be effective?

Response: As soon as Customer Service coordinates with SCOPS to provide I-730 guidance.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Will call center staff respond to inquiries from attorneys of record?

Response: We have been informed that call center staff will respond to inquiries from attorneys of record.

14. I-730 Processing. We have seen an increase in delays and issues related to the processing of I-730 applications for qualified family members of asylees.  While the processing of I-730s is outside of your purview, we would like to suggest the idea of creating an interagency working group between Department of State and DHS regarding I-730 processing.  We have an increasing number of cases that have languished for two, three, four, and sometimes five years.  It is unclear (once the I-730 has been through the NVC and sent overseas) who to “appeal” to when a case has been languishing.  Sometimes it is DOS, sometimes there are USCIS staff—but often there is no response at all to the cases, despite repeated requests for status updates.  A period of separation this long is extremely hard on family members, especially if the originating country is experiencing unrest or civil strife.  Outreach to embassies, DOS in DC, USCIS generally, the office of the USCIS Ombudsman, and NVC has not yielded any clearer guidance or assistance with these cases.  What do you think about creating a working group and/or providing more clarity for processes with long-pending I-730s?  Would headquarters support this kind of effort?  Unfortunately, at this point, the only other option that seems to be available is mandamus litigation, which is costly and seemingly unnecessary if the I-730 process could be better structured.

Response: In cooperation with the Department of State, USCIS has created a guide for stakeholders to use when they have I-730 case inquiries. Depending on the stage of processing for the case in question, stakeholders should contact the USCIS service center, the National Visa Center or the overseas embassy, consulate or USCIS field office with jurisdiction over the case. Contact information is provided on the handout provided. There is an I-730 stakeholder meeting on August 15th. Contact Public Engagement for more information (Public.Engagement@uscis.).

Stakeholder Follow-up: The problem is not really on the USCIS side. The problem is most prevalent at the embassy or consulate. There is nothing we can do to get information or resolve issues. Years go by and it is hard to explain what is causing the delay. I think the problem is at the Department of State. I also tried sending emails to SCOPS and did not receive a response. It would be helpful if there was a clearer chain of command or point of contact.

Response: We encourage you to join the stakeholder call. The Department of State will be there and we will also raise this.

15. Clock and Change in Jurisdiction. Asylum applicants are required by law to report any change of address. In New York and New Jersey asylum offices a policy exists whereby an address change causing a change in jurisdiction from one office to the other will be interpreted as a request for change in jurisdiction. The asylum clock counting the days to EAD eligibility will be stopped due to the delay alleged to be caused by the client’s alleged request. Please explain why asylum applicants who are obeying the law are penalized in this way.

Response: The movement between Asylum Office jurisdictions by an asylum applicant is considered a delay requested or caused by the applicant under 8 CFR 208.7.  Therefore the clock is stopped.  When the applicant moves to a new jurisdiction, a scheduled interview is cancelled at the original jurisdiction and rescheduled in the new jurisdiction, causing a delay in the adjudication of the case.

Stakeholder Follow-up: I have a case in which the applicant lives in Nashville, but we were given an interview in Miami. We told the Asylum Office that our client lives in Nashville, but the Asylum Office stopped the clock.

Response: The applicant’s address should be included in the I-589. Listing the attorney’s address instead of the applicant’s address may lead to problems.

Stakeholder Follow-up: We put care of our address as the attorney so mail would not get lost.

Response: The attorney of record will receive a copy of all documents sent to the applicant and therefore it should not be necessary for the attorney’s address to be listed as the mailing address.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Is there any wiggle room to not construe the move as a delay and thus not causing clock to stop? Sometimes the applicant needs to move.

Response: The problem is when the address change is put in the system and the jurisdiction and Asylum Office are changed to reflect the applicant’s new residence. In most instances the case will be transferred to the new jurisdiction and the clock is automatically stopped.

Stakeholder Follow-up: Can the clock point of contact in the Asylum Office prevent the clock from stopping? Is it possible to request an interview in the original jurisdiction even though the address changes?

Response: As noted above, the clock is stopped when there is a change in jurisdiction and the case is transferred. Asylum Office Directors maintain discretion to establish criteria for determining which interviews will go forward and which will be cancelled for transfer of the file to the new Asylum Office having jurisdiction over the applicant’s new residence. Please raise this issue with the local Asylum Office.

16. Teleconference Requests. We truly appreciate the opportunity to attend the asylum stakeholder meetings.  However, as a legal aid organization, we do not have the budget to send individuals in-person.  Would the Service ever consider adding a call-in component to these engagements, similar to those done by certain Service Centers?  As the majority of representatives working with asylum-seekers do so pro bono or through legal aid organizations such as ours, and are also unlikely to be able to afford the travel costs unless they are in the mid-Atlantic region, it would seem to make sense so as the most stakeholders as possible may attend. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Response: We understand the desire to be more inclusive, and this request is under consideration.

Please contact Public.Engagement@uscis. with any follow-up questions.

***Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 22, 2013***

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download